CA Unpub Decisions

A jury found Alejandro Morales guilty of attempted robbery on an aiding and abetting theory. (Pen. Code, §§ 211, 664.) Morales admitted to having one prison prior (§§ 667.5, subd. (b), 668), and the court found Morales had been convicted of a strike offense (§ 667, subds. (b)-(i)). The court imposed a sentence of three years eight months.
Morales challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction, and contends the court erred in giving a flight instruction (CALCRIM No. 372). We reject these contentions and affirm the judgment.

Robert Lee Maurer appeals from the judgment imposed after his guilty plea. (Pen. Code, § 1237, subd. (b); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.304(b)(4)(B).)
Police arrested Maurer for being under the influence of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. (Health & Saf. Code, §§ 11550, subd. (a), 11364, subd. (a).) During a booking search, a deputy found methamphetamine and heroin on Maurer’s person. Maurer pled guilty to bringing controlled substances into jail. (Pen. Code, § 4573.) The trial court sentenced him to two years in state prison.

Defendant Nassim Lebnan Majedaad pleaded no contest to grand theft (Pen. Code, §§ 484, 487, subd. (a)) and money laundering (§ 186.10, subd. (a)). The trial court placed defendant on probation for three years with various terms and conditions. After a contested restitution hearing, the court ordered defendant to pay restitution totaling $67,400.33 to seven financial institutions.
On appeal, defendant contends that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the full amount of restitution requested. Specifically, defendant argues (1) there was not substantial evidence that one of the financial institutions, Chase Bank, suffered a loss, and (2) there was a dispute about whether defendant had made offsetting payments to some of the financial institutions and the court refused to examine available records to resolve the issue. Defendant also contends that his federal constitutional right to due process was violated.

On October 28, 1999, following his conviction for murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a)), appellant was sentenced to 28 years to life in state prison. The court imposed a $5,000 restitution fine pursuant to section 1202.4, subdivision (b), and a $5,000 parole revocation restitution fine. The latter was stayed pending successful completion of parole.

An amended information charged appellant Christopher John Kehoe with possession of more than 600 child pornography images portraying sexual sadism and masochism (Pen. Code, § 311.11, subd. (c) ; counts 1 and 5); possession and transmission of child pornography (§ 311.1, subd. (a); counts 2 and 6); exhibiting a minor in pornography (§ 311.2, subd. (b); counts 3 and 7); possession of matter depicting a minor engaging in sexual conduct (§ 311.11, subd. (a); counts 4 and 8); possession of methamphetamine for sale (Health & Saf. Code, § 11378; count 9); and possession of psilocybin mushrooms (id., § 11377, subd. (a); count 10). It was further alleged that appellant was released from custody on bail or his own recognizance at the time of the commission of these offenses (§ 12022.1).

Appellant Richard Keith Jorgenson appeals from the denial of his petition for resentencing filed pursuant to Proposition 47. Appellant contends he was eligible for resentencing on his 2010 conviction for second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) because he entered a commercial establishment with the intent to fraudulently obtain property. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Luis Angel Hernandez appeals from the judgment entered after a jury convicted him of second degree robbery and misdemeanor assault. Based on these convictions, the trial court found Hernandez had violated probation imposed in an earlier case for aggravated assault, in which he had received a suspended four-year state prison sentence. The court sentenced Hernandez to the upper term of five years in state prison for the robbery conviction and ordered the revived four-year prison term to run concurrently. Hernandez contends that, in imposing the upper term of five years, the court improperly considered his rejection of a proposed plea agreement with a three-year sentence offered by the People before trial. We affirm.

Appellant Amy Denise Granados appeals from the partial denial of her petition for resentencing, filed pursuant to Proposition 47. Appellant contends she was eligible for resentencing on three convictions for second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) and that a remand is required to determine whether appellant was eligible for resentencing on a fourth conviction for second degree burglary. Appellant further contends the trial court was responsible for determining her eligibility and, should this court disagree, she received ineffective assistance of counsel when her counsel did not specifically argue the four contested convictions were eligible for resentencing. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant Sherri Lynn Goldsmith appeals from the denial of her petition for resentencing, filed pursuant to Proposition 47. Appellant contends she was eligible for resentencing on her 2012 conviction for second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) because she entered a commercial establishment with the intent to commit larceny through the presentation of a forged check. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Appellant Gloria Denise Gittens appeals from the partial denial of her petition for resentencing, filed pursuant to Proposition 47. Appellant contends she was eligible for resentencing on her various convictions for second degree burglary (Pen. Code, §§ 459, 460, subd. (b)) because she entered commercial establishments with the intent to commit both identity theft and theft of merchandise. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.

Raul Cervantes was convicted by a jury of two counts of assault with a deadly weapon. On appeal Cervantes contends the victims’ in-court identifications of him were tainted by an unduly suggestive field identification procedure and should have been excluded. He also contends the court erred in failing to rule on his motion for a mistrial following the introduction of that evidence. We affirm.

After defendant Eriberto Campos waived his right to a jury trial, the trial court found him guilty of possessing a concealed dirk or dagger. (Pen. Code, § 21310.) Defendant then admitted that he had a prior felony conviction that qualified as a “strike” (§§ 667, subds. (b)-(i), 1170.12) and that he had served a prior prison term (§ 667.5, subd. (b)). The trial court subsequently granted defendant’s motion to dismiss the strike allegation (see People v. Superior Court (Romero) (1996) 13 Cal.4th 497) and placed him on probation, ordering him to serve one year in county jail.
On appeal, defendant’s appointed counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) that states the case and facts, but raises no issue. We notified defendant of his right to submit written argument on his own behalf within 30 days. That period has elapsed and we have received no written argument from defendant. Pursuant to Wende, supra, 25 Cal.3d 436 and People v.

On April 29, 2016, a felony complaint charged defendant and appellant Brandon Latrellnoel Bobb with sexual penetration by a foreign object (Pen. Code, § 289, subd. (a); count 1); and charged defendant and codefendant Keshawn Amis with sexual penetration in concert (Pen. Code, §§ 264.1, subd. (a), 289, subd. (a); count 2). As to count 1, the complaint also alleged a sentencing enhancement for commission of a specified offense during the commission of a burglary (Pen. Code, § 667.61, subd. (e)(2)). On October 5, 2016, the prosecution amended the complaint and added count 4—assault by means likely to produce great bodily injury (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)). In exchange for a negotiated prison sentence of 10 years, defendant pled guilty to counts 2 and 4.

Defendant Arcadio Avalos Amezcua was convicted by jury trial of various crimes arising from the sexual abuse of his nieces. On appeal, the parties agree, as do we, that one of the sexual abuse convictions must be reversed and stricken.